Re: Oracle vs. MS SQL Server

Andrew Allen wrote:

> Ethel Aardvark wrote:
> > I can pretty much guarantee that you will not be able to find anything
> > of much use. True, there are a good many comparisons about the place,
> > but most are so clearly biased that they can be discounted
> > immediately.
> > Many of the remainders compare based on criteria such as a "feature
> > list" (e.g., "XML Support" - meaninglessly vague) or some aspects
> > which do not make a fair comparison.
> > Personally, I suspect most people writing comparisons have their minds
> > made up before they start work!
> >
> > Good luck anyway.
> >
> > ETA
> >
> > "Phil" <philrk_at_alltel.net> wrote in message news:<ckK8a.17471$u12.6366591_at_news.alltel.net>...
> >
> >>Looking for a completed evaluation comparing Oracle with MS SQL Server. Any
> >>ideas?
>
> Also,
> When you look at feature-to-feature comparisons, you have to look under
> the covers to see how they are implemented. For instance, Oracle 9.2
> and SQL$erver both claim to do clustering -- but look under the covers
> and see which one does real clustering that is transparent to the app
> and which requires the application to be 'cluster aware'. Both
> databases do row level locking, but which one escalates locks to the
> block (page) level and then table level and what is the impact on
> salability does that have.
> All in all, when making a comparison of two database servers remember
> three things:
> 1. Look behind the curtain because what that little man is doing IS
> IMPORTANT.
> 2. What platform are you going to deploy on now, what platform will you
> be on in five or ten years and what is the likelihood that the database
> you choose now will be supported on that platform?
> 3. The price of the database, like the price of a wedding ring, is only
> the down payment brother.
> --
> AjA

And another point is that some of the most important differences you will never find in most comparisons.

Oracle, for example, uses a multiversion consistency model. It is the implications of this, rather than its existance, that is important.

Daniel Morgan Received on Tue Mar 04 2003 - 16:12:30 CST